THE Electoral Commission has navigated a political minefield and come up with a referendum question and campaign spending limits acceptable to all sides.
It is not an inconsiderable achievement, but the watchdog did its job so well that those once controversial issues barely merited a mention at Holyrood.
Instead, MSPs focused on the commission's unexpected call for the UK and Scottish governments to work together to explain the next steps in the event of either a Yes or No vote.
The plea follows question-testing at focus groups that revealed widespread confusion among voters about what would happen in the immediate aftermath of the referendum.
The Electoral Commission has not asked for the two governments to "pre-negotiate" the possible terms of an independence deal ahead of the vote, something all sides agree is impossible.
But it wants them to do more to explain the process of negotiations that would follow a Yes vote or what might happen next if Scots opt to remain in the UK. The Scottish Government has already requested what it calls transition talks with the UK in a bid to list the issues that would be up for negotiation (Scotland's share of military hardware, or conditions for keeping the pound, for example), identify legislation required to grant independence and establish a possible timeframe. The idea was rejected by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore earlier this year but he sounded more receptive after the Electoral Commission's intervention, promising to discuss a Government paper on the negotiation process with counterparts in Edinburgh when it is published next month.
It is less clear, though, whether the two governments could shed much light on what would happen in the event of a No vote.
The main pro-UK parties are all considering their own proposals to increase devolution, which could form the basis of manifesto pledges in the run up to the 2015 Westminster election. Unless or until they come up with firm plans, the two governments could not say more than that.
Why are you making commenting on HeraldScotland only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article